Clinical consequences of infliximab immunogenicity and the effect of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring: exploratory analyses of the randomised, controlled NOR-DRUM trials.

BACKGROUND: Antidrug antibodies to TNF inhibitors might affect clinical outcomes. Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring allows for early detection of antidrug antibodies and might reduce negative clinical consequences. We aimed to explore how antidrug antibodies to the TNF inhibitor infliximab influence treatment outcomes, and to assess the effect of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring. METHODS: This was a predefined exploratory analysis of data from the randomised, controlled NOR-DRUM trials. The trials were conducted in rheumatology, gastroenterology, and dermatology departments at 21 Norwegian hospitals. Adult patients (aged 18-75 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases were randomly assigned to proactive therapeutic drug monitoring or standard infliximab dosing in the NOR-DRUM A trial (30-week follow-up) and the NOR-DRUM B trial (52-week follow-up). Antidrug antibodies were assessed with a drug-sensitive assay before each infusion. The outcomes of remission (at week 30), disease worsening (during 52 weeks), infusion reactions, and infliximab discontinuation were assessed according to the presence of antidrug antibodies and use of therapeutic drug monitoring. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2017, and Dec 12, 2019, 616 patients were included in the NOR-DRUM trials, of whom 615 had at least one serum infliximab and antidrug antibody assessment and were included in the present analyses. Mean age was 45 years (IQR 32-56), 305 (50%) patients were women, and 310 (50%) patients were men. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 147 (24%) patients. Remission at week 30 occurred in 25 (35%) of 72 patients with antidrug antibodies and 180 (54%) of 335 without antidrug antibodies (risk ratio 0·62 [95% CI 0·45-0·86]; p=0·0037). In patients with antidrug antibodies compared with patients without antidrug antibodies, higher rates were found for: disease worsening over 52 weeks (0·76 per person-year vs 0· 35 per person-year, hazard ratio [HR] 2·02 [95% CI 1·33-3·07]; p=0·0009), infusion reactions (0·16 per person-year vs 0·03 per person-year, HR 17·02 [6·98-41·47]; p<0·0001), and infliximab discontinuation (1·00 per person-year vs 0·20 per person-year, HR 6·64 [4·84-9·11]; p<0·0001). These associations were more pronounced in patients with high concentrations of antidrug antibodies than in those with low concentrations of antidrug antibodies. Independent of antibody status, therapeutic drug monitoring was associated with a lower risk of disease worsening (HR 0·41 [0·29-0·59]; p=0·0001) or an infusion reaction (HR 0·30 [0·12-0·73]; p=0·0076), and was associated with an increase in the rate of infliximab discontinuation (HR 1·37 [1·02-1·83]; p=0·037). INTERPRETATION: In patients where antidrug antibodies were detected, remission was less likely to be reached and sustained, and infusion reaction or discontinuation of infliximab was more likely. Timely detection of antidrug antibodies by proactive therapeutic drug monitoring facilitated treatment decisions that reduced the negative consequences, both regarding infliximab effectiveness and safety. This highlights the role of proactive therapeutic drug monitoring in optimising infliximab therapy. FUNDING: Inter-regional KLINBEFORSK grants and South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority grants.

HLA-DQ2 is associated with anti-drug antibody formation to infliximab in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

BACKGROUND: Immunogenicity to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors is a significant clinical problem leading to treatment failure and adverse events. The study aimed to assess human leukocyte antigen (HLA) associations with anti-drug antibody (ADAb) formation to infliximab. METHODS: Immune-mediated inflammatory disease patients on infliximab therapy (n = 612) were included. Neutralising ADAb were assessed with a drug-sensitive assay. Next generation sequencing-based HLA typing was performed. RESULTS: Overall, 147 (24%) patients developed ADAb. Conditional analyses indicated HLA-DQB1 (p = 1.4 × 10-6 ) as a primary risk locus. Highest risk of ADAb was seen when carrying at least one of the HLA-DQ2 haplotypes; DQB1*02:01-DQA1*05:01 or DQB1*02:02-DQA1*02:01 (OR 3.18, 95% CI 2.15-4.69 and p = 5.9 × 10-9 ). Results were consistent across diseases and when adjusting for concomitant immunomodulator. Computational predictions indicated that these HLA-DQ2 haplotypes bind to peptide motifs from infliximab light chain. CONCLUSION: A genome-wide significant association between two HLA-DQ2 haplotypes and the risk of ADAb formation to infliximab was identified, suggesting that HLA-DQ2 testing may facilitate personalised treatment decisions.

Assessing Immunogenicity of Biologic Drugs in Inflammatory Joint Diseases: Progress Towards Personalized Medicine.

Biologic drugs have greatly improved treatment outcomes of inflammatory joint diseases, but a substantial proportion of patients either do not respond to treatment or lose response over time. Drug immunogenicity, manifested as the formation of anti-drug antibodies (ADAb), constitute a significant clinical problem. Anti-drug antibodies influence the pharmacokinetics of the drug, are associated with reduced clinical efficacy, and an increased risk of adverse events such as infusion reactions. The prevalence of ADAb differs among drugs and diseases, and the detection of ADAb also depends on the assay format. Most data exist for the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors infliximab and adalimumab, with a frequency of ADAb that ranges from 10 to 60% across studies. Measurement of ADAb and serum drug concentrations, therapeutic drug monitoring, has been suggested as a strategy to optimize therapy with biologic drugs. Although the recent randomized clinical Norwegian Drug Monitoring (NOR-DRUM) trials show promise towards a personalized medicine prescribing approach by therapeutic drug monitoring, several challenges remain. A plethora of assay formats, with widely differing properties, is currently used for measuring ADAb. Comparing results between different assays and laboratories is difficult, which complicates the development of cut-offs necessary for guidelines and the implementation of ADAb measurements in clinical practice. With the possible exception of infliximab, limited data on clinical relevance and cost effectiveness exist to support therapeutic drug monitoring as a routine clinical strategy to monitor biologic drugs in inflammatory joint diseases. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the characteristics and prevalence of ADAb, predisposing factors to ADAb formation, commonly used assessment methods, clinical consequences of ADAb, and the potential implications of ADAb assessments for everyday treatment of inflammatory joint diseases.

Risk factors for anti-drug antibody formation to infliximab: Secondary analyses of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies (ADAb) frequently form early in the treatment course of infliximab and other tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, leading to treatment failure and adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors for ADAb in the early phase of infliximab treatment. METHODS: Patients (n = 410) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who initiated infliximab treatment were included in the 38-week Norwegian Drug Monitoring Trial (NOR-DRUM) A and randomised 1:1 to therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) or standard therapy. Serum levels of infliximab and ADAb were measured at each infusion. Possible risk factors for ADAb formation were assessed using logistic regression, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: ADAb were detected in 78 (19%) patients. A diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (odds ratio [OR], 1.9 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-3.6]) and lifetime smoking (OR, 2.0 [CI 1.1-3.6]) were baseline risk factors, while baseline use of concomitant immunosuppressors (OR, 0.4 [CI 0.2-0.8]) and a diagnosis of spondyloarthritis (SpA) (OR, 0.4 [CI 0.2-0.8]) reduced the risk of ADAb. Higher disease activity during follow-up (OR, 1.1 [CI 1.0-1.1]) and "drug holidays" of more than 11 weeks (OR, 4.1 [CI 1.2-13.8]) increased the risk of ADAb, whereas higher infliximab doses (OR, 0.1 [CI 0.0-0.3) and higher serum infliximab concentrations (OR, 0.7 [CI 0.6-0.8]) reduced the risk of immunogenicity. CONCLUSION: Several risk factors for ADAb formation during early-phase infliximab treatment were identified. This knowledge provides a basis for treatment strategies to mitigate the formation of ADAb and identify patients in whom these measures are of particular importance.

Effect of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring vs Standard Therapy During Maintenance Infliximab Therapy on Disease Control in Patients With Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), consisting of individualized treatment based on scheduled assessments of serum drug levels, has been proposed as an alternative to standard therapy to optimize efficacy and safety of infliximab and other biologic drugs. However, it remains unclear whether proactive TDM improves clinical outcomes during maintenance therapy. Objective: To assess whether proactive TDM during maintenance therapy with infliximab improves treatment efficacy by preventing disease worsening compared with standard infliximab therapy without TDM. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, parallel-group, open-label clinical trial including 458 adults with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, or psoriasis undergoing maintenance therapy with infliximab in 20 Norwegian hospitals. Patients were recruited from June 7, 2017, to December 12, 2019. Final follow-up took place on December 14, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to proactive TDM with dose and interval adjustments based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies (TDM group; n = 228) or to standard infliximab therapy without drug and antibody level monitoring (standard therapy group; n = 230). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was sustained disease control without disease worsening, defined by disease-specific composite scores or consensus about disease worsening between patient and physician leading to a major change in treatment (switching to another biologic drug, adding an immunosuppressive drug including glucocorticoids, or increasing the infliximab dose), during the 52-week study period. Results: Among 458 randomized patients (mean age, 44.8 [SD, 14.3] years; 216 women [49.8%]), 454 received their randomly allocated intervention and were included in the full analysis set. The primary outcome of sustained disease control without disease worsening was observed in 167 patients (73.6%) in the TDM group and 127 patients (55.9%) in the standard therapy group. The estimated adjusted difference was 17.6% (95% CI, 9.0%-26.2%; P < .001) favoring TDM. Adverse events were reported in 137 patients (60%) and 142 patients (63%) in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases undergoing maintenance therapy with infliximab, proactive TDM was more effective than treatment without TDM in sustaining disease control without disease worsening. Further research is needed to compare proactive TDM with reactive TDM, to assess the effects on long-term disease complications, and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03074656.

Effect of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring vs Standard Therapy During Infliximab Induction on Disease Remission in Patients With Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Proactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), defined as individualized drug dosing based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels, has been proposed as an alternative to standard therapy to maximize efficacy and safety of infliximab and other biological drugs. However, whether proactive TDM improves clinical outcomes when implemented at the time of drug initiation, compared with standard therapy, remains unclear. Objective: To assess whether TDM during initiation of infliximab therapy improves treatment efficacy compared with standard infliximab therapy without TDM. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, parallel-group, open-label clinical trial of 411 adults with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, ulcerative colitis, Crohn disease, or psoriasis initiating infliximab therapy in 21 hospitals in Norway. Patients were recruited from March 1, 2017, to January 10, 2019. Final follow-up occurred on November 5, 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive proactive TDM with dose and interval adjustments based on scheduled monitoring of serum drug levels and antidrug antibodies (TDM group; n = 207) or standard infliximab therapy without drug and antibody level monitoring (standard therapy group; n = 204). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was clinical remission at week 30. Results: Among 411 randomized patients (mean age, 44.7 [SD, 14.9] years; 209 women [51%]), 398 (198 in the TDM group and 200 in the standard therapy group) received their randomized intervention and were included in the full analysis set. Clinical remission at week 30 was achieved in 100 (50.5%) of 198 and 106 (53.0%) of 200 patients in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively (adjusted difference, 1.5%; 95% CI, -8.2% to 11.1%; P = .78). Adverse events were reported in 135 patients (68%) and 139 patients (70%) in the TDM and standard therapy groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases initiating treatment with infliximab, proactive therapeutic drug monitoring, compared with standard therapy, did not significantly improve clinical remission rates over 30 weeks. These findings do not support routine use of therapeutic drug monitoring during infliximab induction for improving disease remission rates. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03074656.